Peer Review History
Original SubmissionFebruary 1, 2022 |
---|
PGPH-D-22-00144 Using a Health Belief Model to Assess COVID-19 Vaccine Intention and Hesitancy in Jakarta, Indonesia PLOS Global Public Health Dear Dr. Amir, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by . If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Mahbub-Ul Alam, MPH Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health Journal Requirements: 1. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. 2. Please update your online Competing Interests statement. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” 3. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB. For more information about how to convert your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures 4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the direct link to access each database as we cannot access the provided link. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Congratulations to the research team for their thoughtful manuscript. The statistical analysis has been accurately done and presented and the findings either provides new information or consistent with other findings. My only specific comment is the need to standardize how numbers are captured in the manuscript. For instance: the use of commas or periods in numbers/figures wasn't consistent such as IDR 10.000.001-IDR 12.500.000 (use of period in table 1 for income) or in the discussion you notice a number captured as 1,906,096 (with commas) or 11611 in table 1 (without period or commas). Same for P-values: where decimal is used (P< .05) but in the tables you see P-values reflected as 0,006 (with commas). In the discussion you have for instance n= 4,652, 40.06% (decimals used) but in the tables you see percentages using commas (not decimals for consistency). The lack of consistency is my challenge. Recommendation: In as much as how the numbers have been reflected by the authors is not wrong, there is need for standardization and uniformity in the use of periods and commas in the tables and in the main write up to make it easier for the reader to follow. e.g either use P<0.05 or P<0,05 for consistency or 1,100,000 or 1.100.000 for consistency and not a mixture of the two formats. Reviewer #2: Thank you for inviting me to review " Using a Health Belief Model to Assess COVID-19 Vaccine Intention and Hesitancy in Jakarta, Indonesia" Comments # 1: Abstract Line number 43: Please add 0 (zero) before writing a decimal number and add a space between CI:2.57 After line 51, the authors should give a conclusion or solution-related line that beautifies the abstract part. The author can mention something like the following line. For example, the current findings on COVID-19 vaccination show that the government and policymakers should take all necessary steps to ensure the effectiveness of the vaccination program Comments # 2: Introduction Line number 87, 88: Correct the statement of only 1.178.243 persons (39.3%) received the first dose out of 3.000.689 targets. This indicates an inaccurate number, please correct the right number as 1,178,243 persons and 3,000,689 targets in place of 1.178.243 persons and 3.000.689 targets The author should include some references that have summarized vaccine acceptance and vaccine hesitancy. The author also ought to include some studies that have been conducted in developing countries like Asia and developed countries to support this manuscript Comments # 3: Methods Study participants and survey design Line number121: What is the name of the 5 districts? Please included Line number 125: What are the exclusion criteria of this survey? What were the reason for only adding inclusion criteria? Instruments: Line number 130: What types of questionnaires were used in this study? Was it structured, or semi-structured or other types? Statistical analysis Why is not mentioned confidence interval (CI) in the statistical analysis section Comments # 4: Results Line number 168: use space between 2.5million Table 1 Headings section: Please write n instead of count and % in lieu of Percentage (%) Correct the proper percentage of table 1 in each percentage row. This column shows the inaccurate percentage and uses the full stop (.) symbol in place of a comma (,) It is not essential to show the total number of respondents for each categorical row. It can be shown in the table 1 headline as variable category Overall respondent N= 11611 n % Sex Male 5844 50.33 Remove highlights in the rows of (Religion Do not answer 100) Use single space in the row of (Have family members who are currently being or had previously diagnosed with COVID-19 No 10777 92,80). This row contains double space Table 2 Similarly, it is not essential to show the total number of respondents for each categorical row. It can be written as like as table 1. Why are not Spearman's rho and Pearson Chi-Square test analysis show different rows in a similar column? This analysis should be shown different rows in each column. Line number 199: Write this sentence properly. Table 2 details the relationship between whether respondents and their families were being or had previously been diagnosed with COVID-19, respondents’ comorbidities, and the HBM construct Table 3: Include coefficient symbol instead of Use full stop (.) in place of comma (,) Check Table 3 last rows and correct this Line number 236: Above line number 236, insert this table in proper format and use a proper Chi-Square symbol. Table 4: Include coefficient symbol in lieu of Use full stop (.) instead of comma (,) Check the whole Table 4. It seems to miss information in this table. Line number 242: Below the line number 236, insert this table in proper format and use a proper Chi-Square symbol. Comments # 5: Discussions Line number 251: Insert this reference in similar format. The author showed that 92.99% (10,797) would like to get vaccinated. But there is no sufficient explanation for it. The author also didn’t explain the overall world scenario of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. So, the author should give some recent references to the related studies that clear the manuscript. Line number 268: Address mathematical notation (%) in this line, we found nearly 12 percent In lines 269, 270, and 271, this sentence doesn’t sound right and it should be written correctly. Overall comments: There are some grammatical errors as well as improving the English language. It is noticed that the structure of many sentences is misleading. Please revise the manuscript correctly, avoiding grammatical errors. Please add 0 (zero) before writing a decimal number Use full stop (.) in place of comma (,) for all table components were using a numerical number ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Md. Zohurul Islam ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
Using a Health Belief Model to Assess COVID-19 Vaccine Intention and Hesitancy in Jakarta, Indonesia PGPH-D-22-00144R1 Dear Dr Amir, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Using a Health Belief Model to Assess COVID-19 Vaccine Intention and Hesitancy in Jakarta, Indonesia' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health. Best regards, Ari Probandari, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Congratulations for the efforts made in revising the manuscript based on the feedback. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .